Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins?

Fawad

You are surprised that hindu Indians threaten Muslim in India? Notice all the time that they hold the fate of more than one hundred million Muslims as hostages - that is they use this as a bargaining chip - You will come across statements such as concern for what might happen to muslims in India if captive Kashmir shall become free.

I met a couple of Pakistanis recently who have relatives in India - they concern was that Hindus will vent their frustrations over the loss of captive Kashmir on Muslims in India - and that to save these Muslims, Pakistan ought to counsel Hurriyet to accept Indian sovereignty over captive Kashmir. Captive Kasmhir will be trifurcated soon; and hindus will extract a heavy price from all those Muslims who are proud to be indians; sowing seeds whose harvest will be an occasion of joy, of liberty.

``Reap as you sow`` - is a universal law. Its true for Pakistan as it is true for other places.

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Nasah

Neither the point of view I present nor the English language suffer from any inadequacy that you are familiar with. If it did you would be able to counter both with the force of argument and reason.

While other on Chowk rely exclusively on the abandon of reason and argument, it is clear to me that, that is not a path you can tread easily.

It is not I nor the point of view I am presenting, that is at issue, any attempt to make it the issue is a transparent, and entirely unworthy attempt at obfuscation.

Where intellect and reason will not advance, nothing will.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan harimanu

It is too soon for me to conclude that you cannot wait till hell freezes over for an answer, and are therefore not a man of your word. All are deserving of redemption, and with this realization, it is only fair to give every opportunity to fulfill your promise to wait.

Is Hell really cold?

Book review: Veronica decides to die

Veronica, hi. I`d like you to meet Mahmoud. He`s new at Villete and I think you will much in common. Oh, and between now and next week, if you want to, you know, get together or something...

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Feroze

A sharp and well organized post, though largely erroneous. An erroneous premise. The 2% to whom you refer to as ``educated`` - just to clarify, are these persons who possess a BA degree? or those who merely have schooling? !15% - 2% is the general agreement about the percentage of BA holders in Pakistan and not the percentage of ``educated``

``Educational qualification of political candidates is meaningless, because the education system in Pakistan, which will produce the future leaders of Pakistan, is itself flawed``

start all over - New canvass, please! cadres, line up!

Perhaps the education system in utopia is not flawed, but here on earth, it the sure knowledge that here go human constructs, go flaws, for which reason we attempt to minimize the possibility of it occurence and its consequences. This is of course for ordinary men, not the ``perfected`` kind.

Taxation, without representation - in Pakistan?

Only in slogans can taxation ever be equated or connected with representation. The logic of taxation has never been the provision of representation, rather the logic of taxation is the provision of services and the cost of government.

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics

Sadna

How is the happiness of individuals, the responsibility of the state? ``If rains don`t come...`` Does government control rain, is that to be included in the constitution? ``When their crops fail...`` The failure of their crops is the responsibility of government.

Indeed, in your understanding of government, it is panaecea. All pressure groups deserve a subsidy, are some persons entitled to subsidy but not all? To all who do love liberty, who do want to live as free men and women - when someone else, especially a government, is either handed over or usurps the right to take responsibilty for your individual happiness, or seeks to infuse content into the meaning of that happiness - they also take over your life, rather you give it over to them - you agree to be a serf of the state. You may then not complain that you are told what to do and when to do it, what you may or may not eat or drink, how you may or may dress and most importantly what you may and may no think.

Happiness is a thought, if you would bargain with those who would accept to take responsibility for your happiness, know the the content of your character. If it is the responsibility of any government to be responsible for your happiness, to be responsible for producing the results in your life, what is that if not totalitarian government?

Aside - Those in America today hear about losses on the stock market - why does it keep falling? The President says ``all is OK`` - the real fear is what the President may do to ensure all is OK, especially in view of mid-term elections - that is the real reason, stocks markets continue to fall. The President has announced a global war, war on this and war on that and oh yeah, war on Sad damn. The capital markets have voted with their feet, but the Dubya is a fanatic, he wants them al-kay da, Sad damn, and those explosive Palestines to stop, regime change and do more - he wants a booming economy and a global war - can you guess which he cain`t have?

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Rsridhar, B. Atashband, PM, Shammi, Fuzair – any interested

Rsirdhar, I Left you speechless? I wish! But that I`m a soft touch and your annoying and endearing quality of interest in the subject coupled with the challenge, comprehension represents to you (I kid, I kid ya, cause I luv ya, I luv ya cause, I don`t know ya)- (Sincere apologies, I did not mean injury - forgot to take my medicine) Here goes: If one wanted to play a game, should one first set up rules for the game or should one just wing it as we go along - would that be playing the game, at all. Does not playing the game, presuppose general agreement on the rules? The question comes down to agreement on general principles and not particulars. In a democracy the only agreement that matters is agreement on general principles, on method - on rules that apply to all - With your permission, I will return to this theme, a little later and tie it to what follows below:

The argument you suppose is the sovereignty of Parliament argument. However, we have laid that bit of rubbish bare, when we present that the question of ``where sovereignty lies``, is an insipid question in a democracy, for the defining characteristic of democracy is it`s mistrust of power, that it deals with the question of sovereignty with the separation of powers with a view to reduce the possibility of misrule and it`s consequences.

Besides the fact the Sovereignty of Parliament is contrary to the method and ethic of democracy, a sovereign parliament is by character, arbitrary, corrupt and weak. How So? You must be silently pondering? Legislatures: Where general principles, rules of just conduct are formulated – not where a marketplace business is conducted.

Legislature – Sovereign? (Unlimited powers)

To gain a better, fuller, understanding of the role of a legislature/assembly - you will recall that the role of the legislature is create rules, general principles, of just conduct. Ever since the English parliament declared in 1766, that it is ``sovereign`` (where it meant that it recognized no ``will`` other than its own) as opposed to the sovereignty of Law, the role of legislatures/Assemblies has become distorted and a stage set for majoritarianism, IL-liberal democracy, totalitarian democracy, plebescitary democracy, in effect, tyranny.

Recall that the reason for democracy is the determination of general principles of just conduct, so that justice can be done, So that we are guided in the particulars by the principles of just conduct. By claiming sovereignty of parliament, parliament and its partisans, by virtue of this argument, seek to shed constitutionalism. Because they no longer refer to constitution, those general principles, as Sovereign, indeed, now they make laws with no reference to the general principles, and instead make particular laws for particulars areas, for the benefit of particular persons. (In Indian terms of reference, think of the laws passed that favor, benefit, particular groups in society, think of reservations and quotas, trade unions, trade associations, individual persons) Is Justice applicable only to the particular? Can it be justice at all?

Consider now, the classical theory of representative government and of deputies (``Cato Letters`` By J. Trenchard & T. Gordon):

``When they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall on their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief an much frugality``.

Sovereign (unlimited powers) Parliament - Arbitrary

Now many (mis)understand democracy to be the rule of the majority, or some such idiotic notion - Can there be a more vile, a more barbaric conception of justice? Consider, is there any reason to believe that in a case where a majority because they want a particular thing, that this desire is an expression of their sense of justice? If an individual were to say that because he or she desires a particular thing, that, that desire is an expression of their sense of justice? If it is not right in the case of the individual, how can it be right in the case of a collection of individuals? (Notice something about ``our`` agreement in this case - it is not about a particular, but it is agreement about a general principle)

The foundation of civilization or civilized behavior is the restraint individuals have learned to exercise with regard to their desire for particular objects, and submit to generally recognized rules, conventions of just conduct. Majorities, have yet to be civilized in the same way, because they do not have to obey rules (look at anti Qaidiani laws, Blasphemy laws and look at the events of Gujjrat) When persons are persuaded that the agreement of a majority of persons, on a particular issue, issue, proves that the issue is just, they will cease to question whether it is so. The belief that the will of the majority on “particular” matters determines what is just, leads to the view that the majority cannot be arbitrary. Yet without reference to and agreement of, “general principles”, it cannot but be, arbitrary. It is in this way that the sovereign parliament is arbitrary. Some argue that this not the case, that a sovereign parliament does not mean that the constitution, those “general principles” are not sovereign – which, of course, leads one to ask, “Two Suns in The Sky”?

Sovereign (unlimited powers) parliament – Weak

A legislature/assembly that has unlimited powers is inherently weak. Without reference to general principles of just conduct, deputies and political parties/factions have little choice but be agents of pressure groups, deciding not the just rules of conduct, but bargaining and haggling with other groups in society, usually to detriment of some third group in society. In a democratic society, there is no such thing as a majority. What exist instead are groups of interest. The interest groups in order to promote their particular vision, whose benefit must, by definition be particular, bargains with other pressure groups who extort as a price for their agreement, benefits that favor their constituents. It is in this way that “will of the majority” is obtained. Notice here, that no where was there any reference to a larger general principle of just conduct, or what is right. Who will disagree that in our times, modern democratic legislatures have doled out subsidies, benefits, privileges to special interest groups, and who will posit these as just?” A protected against competition from cheap imports, B protected against more highly skilled, lower wage competition or C against job loss and on and on. Are these not all cases of the particular over the general? Consider the “myth of social justice”, have we made laid it bare for the unprincipled haggling and the benefit of the few or the many, that it really is? Sovereign legislatures are inherently weak because unable to refer to general principles, they are constantly reacting, lurching from one special interest or pressure groups demand to the next, with no regard to what is the right thing to do. The system discriminates against the deputy/politicians by denying the possibility of the Deputy/politician to say, no or refer to general principles to keep pressure groups at bay. In this way the entire structure of Democracy becomes but a market place, with obvious consequences for corruption.

Sovereign (unlimited powers) parliament – Corrupt

Sovereign parliaments are inherently corrupt. Unable to resist the pressure from component groups, the governing majority must do all it can to gratify the demands of the groups from which it needs support, regardless of the harm caused to other groups. If no superior judiciary authority can prevent the legislatures from granting privileges to particulars groups and persons, there would be no end to the blackmail to which government will be subject to (think of the case of the Pakistani sardars or the Obscuritanist religious figures and groups). In fact the very power to grant demands of pressure groups, makes government a slave of these very groups. However; there is even greater engine of corruption: By granting subsidies, privileges to particular groups in society, a perception is created that the groups must be deserving. This is again a by-product of the will of the majority being equated with justice – an erroneous and odious notion.

Agreement on general principles/rules and particulars – OR ON METHOD

Why do laws exist? Laws exist to reduce the possibility of conflict in society. They do this by serving as expressions of general moral principles. For instance, we seek to infuse the laws we make with our sense of justice. Justice is an idea about which there is universal understanding. We all agree what justice in the general means, when we apply it to a particular situation or measure, we are applying a general principle of conduct to a particular situation or measure, to do justice. Yet if we do not all agree if justice was done in a particular situation or measure, it must mean that we do not share the same conception of justice. In democratic society, majority agreement can only exist about general principles and not particulars; it’s inherent in the nature of the society, a “open” or “great” society. Even then, it is majority agreement of few general principles.

In our complex societies, can we ever possess knowledge of or have a point of view, about all the particulars, that may become the object of decisions by government? Obviously not. Does democratic government (not legislature) require that the consent of the individuals extend beyond the particular facts they are aware of? Obviously – we can’t all play the same game, if we don’t all agree to the same rules of the same game. We can only reconcile conflicts, if we all agree to the general principles/rules. These constitute our method. In the case of particulars, we refer to general principles for guidance. If we did not refer to general principles/rules, we would be in the position of constantly making up rules for particulars, that is to say, we would not gain agreement as to what constituted the rules of the game; with attendant consequences for the game. If Individuals refer to general principles to deal with particulars, ought not legislatures? And if they do, are they “sovereign”? Recall Laws are legislation only if they refer to general principles, and not because they were created in a legislature. (Clue, can you guess what the foundation of any argument countering the claim that proposed amendments are illegal might be? Other than the fact of the supreme court’s position)

So how does tie in with Pakistan? We clearly have a strong disagreement about the general principles or rather the lack thereof - Mr. khan of the ``Two Suns`` - using my example of rules of the game argues that mr. musharraf and company are out of line - that these are not the rules of English parliament - Mr. khan needs to be awakened from his dream. Pakistan is not England, The Majlis is not the Parliament, the History of democracy in Pakistan is not that of democracy in England, The circumstances of Pakistan are not the circumstances of England. Further, general agreement that parliament is sovereign cannot be said to exist in Pakistan - indeed, if it did, the present regime would be in a position of challenging it`s own legitimacy. Additionally, as we can see there is not a general agreement on what the role of the legislature ought to be. While clearly, the halcion days of loot and plunder in the service of the ``Awam`` are a distant memory, it cannot be argued that Mr. Musharraf`s regimen for reform includes a legislature that will restrict itself to formulating general rules of just conduct. However; and fortunately, neither will the legislature become the government, that is to mean, have both the authority to direct the day to day concerns of governement and policy and have control the resources required for that governance - as is eveident in the decision not to allow control over allocation of resources to deputies - but of course they will win some back. What is then clear is that Pakistan will create a hybrid (as if there was any doubt) morein keeping with the spirit of democracy than ever witnessed in Pakistan before.

eeds

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Nasah

You are a man of conscience but unaware that where intellect and argument will fail to counter, character assasination and sloganeering will not advance.

Counter argument with argument, if you can.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan

Shammi

The error of the method you employ, is common. You assume that since there are a great many choices, all choices must be the same.

You complain that I did not raise my voice on behalf of pandits, from which you determine that raising my voice of behalf of any other suggests that I lack objectivity. A more idiotic sense of logic, I hop e not to encounter. ``I like white`` does not mean I don`t like blue - nor does it put the burden of me, of liking the blue, nor is it a condition of liking white, to assert that one likes blue or not.

I yet you can tell the caste of persons by their name. Come clean, now, you know you can. I know you can.

Coney Al Jazeera Temporal, Ana

First G - could be as you suggest - but it`s not ``GG Hona`` - Its ``GG1 hona`` as in ``aik``?

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics B. Atashband and others interested

For your consideration - my response, which you will have guessed will include a further elaboration on why unlimited sovereignty of the assembly is a disasterous idea, and elaborate on the notion of the mythical majority, and the element of coersion, will follow.

From Today`s ``Daily Times``

`` Popper and limited sovereignty - Abdul Basit Haqqani

In “The Paradoxes of Sovereignty,” Popper criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers

Sir Karl Popper was one of those rare philosophers who could express his thoughts, profound as they were, with such clarity that even a rough and ready soldier could understand him-if he ever read him. And he made eminent good sense, which is more than can be said for most philosophers, particularly those who gained fame in the twentieth century. His principal preoccupation was epistemology, particularly the problem of scientific knowledge, but he also contributed to the philosophy of history and social philosophy.

In The Paradoxes of Sovereignty, he criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers, like “The General Will” or “The People”, “the best” or the wisest”. But that kind of answer is wrong because, “it is not at all easy to get a government on whose goodness and wisdom one can implicitly rely.” Political thought, therefore, should face, “from the very beginning the possibility of bad government” and we should “prepare for the worst leaders and hope for the best. ... [We should] replace the question: Who should rule? by the new question, How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?”

All this would seem to indicate that the General and his Perestroika manager are following Sir Karl’s advice even, as is likely, they never heard of him. They want to make sure that no Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif plays havoc with the country. This should be considered the dictate of prudence given the kind of people that make up our political class. Unfortunately, such a view would be terribly wrong. The army whiz-kids, in attempting to prevent malfeasance by politicians are giving the armed forces carte blanche to do what they like. If we cannot be sure that any elected government, which can be turned out at the next election, will do good, as Popper suggests, how can we be sure that unelected functionaries will. And since we will not be able to send these worthies packing, we will be stuck with a bad lot and will be totally helpless to prevent our rulers from doing damage.

Talk of belief in “unity of command” presumes that the country can be run according to military rules of administration and “engagement”. The difference between a cantonment and democracy is an interesting subject but even to talk about “unity of command” in terms of political life is an error. Besides, the General’s assertion is a transparent sleight of hand. The prime minister, who will be elected through a democratic or quasi-democratic process, can only serve as long as he is suffered by the man-in-uniform. If “command” is concentrated anywhere it is in the hands of a person whose legitimacy is derived from the sword he wields. But ignoring the verbal trick being perpetrated on the people, let us take a look at another one that is bandied about with equal frequency and emphasis.

The purpose of the constitutional mutilations that have been dreamt up by the bewildered is, we are told, to introduce “checks and balances” on what had become an all powerful office. Leaving aside the absence of checks and balances on the new all-powerful office being created, let us return to Popper to see if anything of the kind is required at all. He says that there is an assumption made by thinkers that “political power is ‘essentially’ unchecked but, he points out, “it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has been unchecked and as long as men remain human ... there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. Even the most powerful tyrant depends on his secret police, his henchmen and hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing off one group against the other. It means that there are other political forces, other powers beside his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them.”

The General should have personal experience of this. His power may seem absolute to the disenfranchised people but he has to worry about the ISI, defer to the Corps Commanders, appease the Mullahs (as he is reported to have done once again by expressing readiness to reconsider the matter of joint electorates), and even political clients. Nor is his domestic agenda autonomous of the outside world. He must take into account the demands of the Americans, the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank. If he can be hemmed in, how can he imagine that a civilian prime minister will not be?

What the polity needs is ensuring that our leaders are subjected to pressures from those that are under the people’s control, not those capable of threatening them with brute force.

Basit Haqqani is a former ambassador with a long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service. His novel, “Papio,” won the Academy of Letters’ best book award``

Dhirubhai Ambani: The Heathcliffe of Indian business Sadna

Outstanding. Yes post the whole thing. Self reliance, a level economic playing field, the individual versus the collective. How even method has been replaced - elements of the origins of totalitarian democracy.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Tahmed

harimanu claims he is prepared to wait till hell freezes over for your answers - Could I impose on you to allow the testing of harimanu claims of being able to wait - now, if only he could wait in silence. And as mercy to those suffering in hell, he may relent and bathe or brush his teeth.

Coney Al Jazeera Temporal

you heard for the first time a while ago? Thank you very little - I`m working on it. And you say it`s fun?

Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics Behram Atashband

Dear Mr. Atashbad, whether we agree or not will remain till the arguments we shall present have been expanded.

Your logic as expressed in your post, is miserly in the service it offers. My original post set the stage for an element of the argument, as concisely expressed by fuzair, If other exceptions, why not this?

The ``right`` to candidature does not exist in any theory of democracy that I am familiar with or it make be that scholars have not availed themselves of logic, though this is a distant possibility, you will grant. I invite you to consider fuzair`s original post, in particular the notion that if a majority should agree for something to have a particular meaning or content, that, that infuses the proposition with a content we can claim ``just``. Think of the ``capitulation`` of assemblies in Germany and Italy.

The general debate about these ammendments, I put it you, is the false conception of Democracy and democractic government. NEVER, must democracy ever mean the opinion of a ``Mythical`` majority about a particular issue. Mythical majority because society is a collection of groups with competing agenda, any way you cut it a particular group will be favored in a particular instance by legislatures/assemblies, because bargaining will the principle underwhich these will operate as opposed to action being taken based on agreement on a general principle - consider, won`t justice be whatever a majority believe it be. If it were not mythical would not all Germans be responsible for Hitler and all Indians responsible for Gujjrat and kashmir? Like Justice, like Lberty, like responsiblity, Democracy is essentially a negative value. Think of the why of justice or liberty or responsibility or democracy and it will be obvious - in all cases it for the prevention of excess, in cases a reasoned limit is proposed as just conduct. The same is the case for democracy - it`s core is to limit and diffuse power with a view to prevent the possibility of misrule and its consequences.

On a side note, If it is true that notions of justice and Liberty inform democracy, what would make of notions such as: ``The belief in democracy presupposes, belief in things higher than democracy``

RSriDhar

You are in error of equating constitutional ammendments with legislation. Constitution is about general principles, method. Whereas legislation is about particulars, that is to say they differ in character. This dialogue is generally about Pakistan and the conception of democracy and democratic government in Pakistan, if you wish my attention and have something worthwhile to offer, to further this understanding, by all means; or else, you may conduct yourself in silence and use these dialogues to prepare yourself to gain an understanding of and for the up coming reforms in your home country.

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Chowkies - Will Wonders never cease? Certainly not! From Todays ``Daily Times`` - A tangential case for control over ruler/governors, Including arriving at conclusions not warranted by the argument - with reference to perhaps the greatest thinker of the 20th century - whom Indian genii refer to, as ``obscure``:

`` Popper and limited sovereignty - Abdul Basit Haqqani

In “The Paradoxes of Sovereignty,” Popper criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers

Sir Karl Popper was one of those rare philosophers who could express his thoughts, profound as they were, with such clarity that even a rough and ready soldier could understand him-if he ever read him. And he made eminent good sense, which is more than can be said for most philosophers, particularly those who gained fame in the twentieth century. His principal preoccupation was epistemology, particularly the problem of scientific knowledge, but he also contributed to the philosophy of history and social philosophy.

In The Paradoxes of Sovereignty, he criticized philosophy’s preoccupation, since Plato, with the wrong question-”who should rule? Or whose will should be supreme?” Such a question, he felt, would inevitable lead to the wrong answers, like “The General Will” or “The People”, “the best” or the wisest”. But that kind of answer is wrong because, “it is not at all easy to get a government on whose goodness and wisdom one can implicitly rely.” Political thought, therefore, should face, “from the very beginning the possibility of bad government” and we should “prepare for the worst leaders and hope for the best. ... [We should] replace the question: Who should rule? by the new question, How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?”

All this would seem to indicate that the General and his Perestroika manager are following Sir Karl’s advice even, as is likely, they never heard of him. They want to make sure that no Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif plays havoc with the country. This should be considered the dictate of prudence given the kind of people that make up our political class. Unfortunately, such a view would be terribly wrong. The army whiz-kids, in attempting to prevent malfeasance by politicians are giving the armed forces carte blanche to do what they like. If we cannot be sure that any elected government, which can be turned out at the next election, will do good, as Popper suggests, how can we be sure that unelected functionaries will. And since we will not be able to send these worthies packing, we will be stuck with a bad lot and will be totally helpless to prevent our rulers from doing damage.

Talk of belief in “unity of command” presumes that the country can be run according to military rules of administration and “engagement”. The difference between a cantonment and democracy is an interesting subject but even to talk about “unity of command” in terms of political life is an error. Besides, the General’s assertion is a transparent sleight of hand. The prime minister, who will be elected through a democratic or quasi-democratic process, can only serve as long as he is suffered by the man-in-uniform. If “command” is concentrated anywhere it is in the hands of a person whose legitimacy is derived from the sword he wields. But ignoring the verbal trick being perpetrated on the people, let us take a look at another one that is bandied about with equal frequency and emphasis.

The purpose of the constitutional mutilations that have been dreamt up by the bewildered is, we are told, to introduce “checks and balances” on what had become an all powerful office. Leaving aside the absence of checks and balances on the new all-powerful office being created, let us return to Popper to see if anything of the kind is required at all. He says that there is an assumption made by thinkers that “political power is ‘essentially’ unchecked but, he points out, “it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has been unchecked and as long as men remain human ... there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. Even the most powerful tyrant depends on his secret police, his henchmen and hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing off one group against the other. It means that there are other political forces, other powers beside his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them.”

The General should have personal experience of this. His power may seem absolute to the disenfranchised people but he has to worry about the ISI, defer to the Corps Commanders, appease the Mullahs (as he is reported to have done once again by expressing readiness to reconsider the matter of joint electorates), and even political clients. Nor is his domestic agenda autonomous of the outside world. He must take into account the demands of the Americans, the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank. If he can be hemmed in, how can he imagine that a civilian prime minister will not be?

What the polity needs is ensuring that our leaders are subjected to pressures from those that are under the people’s control, not those capable of threatening them with brute force.

Basit Haqqani is a former ambassador with a long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service. His novel, “Papio,” won the Academy of Letters’ best book award

Notice Mr. Haqqani`s objection - ``threaten with brute force`` - Go tell it to Nawaz and to the Supreme court, Mr. Ambassador. Tell it Bhutto and his FIA, To ``Senator`` Zardari of % fame. I have a response for you Mr. Ambassador - but I want you to be read first. If only the rest of us had friends to ensure our ideas were also published in Pakistani Newspapers.

Musharraf and his team unfamiliar with Popper? and ignorance is bliss? ``Open Society and It`s Enemies`` - A must read for all so fashionably romantic, Who ``suffer`` for their work (by being published) For all you would defend Liberty.

Unfamiliar with Mill, with Hayek, with Vile, with Sartori? DREAM ON.

unfamiliar with Soroush, Talmon,? keep it up, dreamers.